Centerpoint Designs

 Include nc center points (0,…,0) in a factorial

design
– Obtains estimate of pure error (at center of region of
interest)
– Tests of curvature
– We will use C to subscript center points and F to
subscript factorial points
 Example (Lochner & Mattar, 1990)
– Y=process yield
– A=Reaction time (150, 155, 160 seconds)
– B=Temperature (30, 35, 40)
 Centerpoint Designs

40 41.5
+1
40.3
40.5
B 0 40.7
40.2
40.6
-1
39.3 40.9
-1 0 +1
A
 Centerpoint Designs
 Statistics used for test of curvature

yC  (40.3  40.5  40.7  40.2  40.6) / 5  40.46

y F  (39.3  40.9  40  41.5) / 4  40.425
sC  .20736
 Centerpoint Designs
 When do we have curvature?
 For a main effects or interaction model,
yc  yF
 Otherwise, for many types of curvature,

yc  yF
 Centerpoint Designs

•A test statistic for curvature

yC  y F
T
1 1
sC 
nC nF
 Centerpoint Designs
 T has a t distribution with nC-1 df
(t.975,4=2.776)
 T>0 indicates a hilltop or ridge
 T<0 indicates a valley

40.46  40.425 .035

T   .25
1 1 .139
.20736 
5 4
 Centerpoint Designs
 We can use sC to construct t tests (with
nC-1 df ) for the factor effects as well
 E.g., To test H0: effect A = 0
the test statistic would be:

A
T
sC
k 2
2
 Follow-up Designs
 If curvature is significant, and indicates
that the design is centered (or near) an
optimum response, we can augment the
design to learn more about the shape of
the response surface
 Response Surface Design and Methods
 Follow-up Designs
 If curvature is not significant, or indicates
that the design is not near an optimum
response, we can search for the optimum
response
 Steepest Ascent (if maximizing the
response is the goal) is a straightforward
approach to optimizing the response
 Steepest Ascent

 The steepest ascent direction is derived

from the additive model for an experiment
expressed in either coded or uncoded units.
 Helicopter II Example (Minitab Project)
– Rotor Length (7 cm, 12 cm)
– Rotor Width (3 cm, 5 cm)
– 5 centerpoints (9.5 cm, 4 cm)
 Steepest Ascent

 Helicopter II Example:

RL * 9.5
RL   RL*  9.5  2.5 RL
2. 5

RW * 4
RW   RW *  4  RW
1
 Steepest Ascent

 The coefficients from either the coded or uncoded

additive model define the steepest ascent vector
(b1 b2)’.
 Helicopter II Example

2.775+.425RL-.175RW=
2.775+.425(RL*-9.5)/2.5-.175(RW*-3)=
(2.775-1.615+.525) + .17RL* -.175RW*=
1.685+.17RL*-.175RW*
Contour Plot of Flight Time (Seconds) vs Rotor Width, Rotor Length
5.0
2.8
2.4

4.5
RotorWidth

4.0

3.2

3.5

2.6
3.0
3.0
7 8 9 10 11 12
RotorLength
 Steepest Ascent

 With a steepest ascent direction in

hand, we select design points, starting
from the centerpoint along this path and
continue until the response stops
improving.
 If the first step results in poorer
performance, then it may be necessary
to backtrack
 For the helicopter example, let’s use (1,
-1)’ as an ascent vector.
 Steepest Ascent
 Helicopter II
Example:

Run RW* RL*

1 3 12
2 2.5 12.5
3 2 13
4 1.5 13.5
5 1 14
 Steepest Ascent

 The point along the steepest ascent direction

with highest mean response will serve as the
centerpoint of the new design
 Choose new factor levels (guidelines here are
vague)
 Confirm that yC  y F
 Add axial points to the design to fully
characterize the shape of the response surface
and predict the maximum.
 Central Composite Design
1.5 Block s
1
2
1.0

0.5 (0,0) includes 3 Block 1 runs

and 3 Block 2 runs
0.0
X2

-0.5

-1.0

-1.5
-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
X1
 Steepest Ascent

 The axial points are chosen so that the response at

each combination of factor levels is estimated with
approximately the same precision.
 With 9 distinct design points, we can comfortably
estimate a full quadratic response surface

E (Y | X )  b0  b1 x1  b2 x2  b x  b x  b12 x1 x2
2
11 1
2
22 2

 We usually translate and rotate X1 and X2 to

characterize the response surface (canonical
analysis)